Educated at the University of Dhaka, Bangladesh and Australian National University, Canberra, Australia, I began my teaching career at the Department of International Relations, Dhaka University in January 1970, joined the Dept. of International Relations, University of Karachi in October 1973. I worked there as Professor till early January 2008. Presently I am working as a Japan Foundation Fellow at the Kyoto Museum for World Peace, Ritsumeikan University. Japan. During my stay here till December 2008, I would prepare a book-size study on ‘Building Peace Museums in Pakistan: Relevance of Japanese Peace Museums’.

As a Visiting Professor, I am on the Faculty of Peace and Development Studies at the University of jaume1, Castellon, Spain and MA Program for Peace, Security, Development and International Conflict Transformation, University of Innsbruck, Austria.

During my student life in the 1960s, I actively participated in the movements against the Vietnam war and against military rule in Pakistan. After joining the University as a teacher, I got more and more involved in peace teaching and peace research, lectured extensively on peace-related issues and wrote and published papers on issues relating to human security, nuclear weapons, wars and war victims, Islam and non-violence, violence in Pakistan, challenges to peace-building in Pakistan/South Asia/Muslim societies and on building a peace museum on India-Pakistan border.

About peace in Pakistan

Irenees :

How do you explain current conflicts in Pakistan?

Syed Sikander Mehdi :

I think that Pakistan is passing through a crucial phase of people’s struggle. It is a struggle for peace, democracy, rule of law and equal opportunity for all. This is a movement which is not spearheaded by any major political party. It is a movement of the middle class people and launched by the lawyers and judges in particular. Most of the conflicts in Pakistan, as in other countries, have been created because of the predominance of the military and the feudal class and because of the powerlessness of the institutions like judiciary and parliament. By and large, the economic, ethnic, and sectarian conflicts and resort to terrorism is due to state terrorism, non-democratic governance, weak institutional base of political parties, manipulation by the powerful military and civil elite and because of injustice, illiteracy and widespread poverty.

Irenees :

According to you, which are the most important challenges for peace in Pakistan at the moment ?

Syed Sikander Mehdi :

In my opinion, the uncontrollability of the military is the main problem. The military as an institution is supposed to respect the Constitution, be answerable to the judiciary and the parliament and be subservient to the civilian government, but it is not. It is, as a matter of fact, a state within the state and it is largely responsible for the belligerency of the state itself. The military by training is a confrontationist institution and when it grabs power, its tendency to resolve conflicts through military means and its temptation to adopt hawkish approach in dealing with the neighbouring countries become apparent. Furthermore, vested interest of powerful elite groups in conflicts and peacelessness within and confrontation and unpeacelful relations with the neighbouring countries, unconditional support to the US in order to keep the regime of general Pervez Musharraf in power, power of the feudal class, existence of widespread poverty and illiteracy and powerlessness of the masses, especially powerlessness of Pakistani women are some of the main challenges to peace for Pakistan.

Irenees :

According to you, what part religion is playing in the production or justification of current conflicts in Pakistan? And in peace building?

Syed Sikander Mehdi :

Religion has been used by the Mullahs and religious political parties in Pakistan and the religious parties and groups have been used by the military to keep conflicts in flames. It is widely believed in Pakistan and in the cencerned circles outside Pakistan that it is the firm alliance between the military and the so-called religious forces which have produced and inflamed several conflictual situations and often sabotaged people’s movements for peace, freedom, democracy and equal rights for all. Religious bigotry is strong in Pakistan not because the common people are fundamentalist but because religion has been used to divert the attention of the people from pressing economic, social and cultural problems.

I would say that religion’s role for peace-building in Pakistan is still awaited. While it is agreed that Islam is a religion of peace and it calls for the establishment of a democratic and egalitarian society, not much of serious and sincere efforts have been made so far to challenge religious bigotry and fundamentalism. The media is still very soft towards such elements and the military is alleged to be providing sanctuaries. The Madrassahs in Pakistan continue to have hold on local population in the villages in particular and rumours about weaponization of the Madressahs is rampant. No credible report has come out so far which could explain as to who provides weapons to these Madressahs and why security arrangements often fail in arresting the inflow of arms from different sources.

Things have to change in Pakistan and the masses should not be hostage to the disgruntled political religious parties and for this, the military has to be reigned in and the religious parties and the so-called religious organizations need to be told that they are not above law and the days of the patronage of the state is over. There is also a need to undertake comprehensive programme for peace-teaching and highlighting the peace content in Islam. Likewise, the need is there to highlight the importance of the folk lores and sufi culture and project the peacefulness of the past in Pakistani society.

Irenees :

According a Pakistani common saying : « Each country has an army, but in Pakistan, army has a country ». According to you, what are army’s power and influence in Pakistan: is political power centralized in army’s hands, and in this case, can we call it a military state? Do you think that recent events in Pakistan express a democracy quest, which could lead to an internal reorganization of balance of power?

Syed Sikander Mehdi :

Pakistan is doubtless a military state and the problem is all the more problematic in the demographic setting of the country. The major components of Pakistani population are: Punjabis, Sindhis, Baluchis, Pakhtuns and the Indian migrants. The Punjabis constitute around 60 per cent of population and they are in absolute majority in the military and enjoy commanding position in bureaucracy, trade and commerce, educational institutions, media, embassies of Pakistan abroad and Pakistani diaspora in USA, Europe, Middle East and elsewhere. This ethnic bond is strong and powerful and the Punjabis in general are believed to benefit much more from the Punjabi-dominated military rule in Pakistan than other ethnic groups. For the small, weaker and powerless provinces, the challenge is twofold: on the one hand, there is the danger of the continuance of military rule in Pakistan and on the other hand, the threat is for the Punjabization of other federating units.

Again, it needs to be noted that even during the reign and rule of civilian governments, the military remains supreme and powerful. It is believed that policies regarding nuclear weapons, national security, Kashmir, Afghanistan, India, USA and China are formulated by the military. And the military has a vested interest in the continuance of conflicts within the country and with the neighbours.

It is for the first time in Pakistan’s history that the movement for democracy has become so powerful and the evidences are there that the military had to take many unpleasant decisions in order to restore its respect and acceptability among the masses. The military as an institution has a tarnished image today and the common people are just no longer prepared to live on rhetoric alone. But while the common aspirations of the people are well-known, efforts are being made to construct bridges between the military and the status quoits political parties including the current ruling party - the People’s Party of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto. As such, the major thrust of the present movement is to oust general Pervez Musharraf from power rather than to tell the military in plain words to go back to the barracks for all times to come and behave or else. The movement for democracy in Pakistan cannot achieve meaningful gains if it forces the military to accept mere temporary retreat from the corridors of power. The military has to be brought under the total control of the parliament and judiciary.

I do not think that a sharing of power by the military and civilian government is workable. The issue is not the issue of restoration of balance of power. It is an issue of forcing the military to realize that it has to work under civilian set up and that it has no right to seize power, dismiss civilian governments, disband the parliaments and abrogate the constitution. Unless and until the military accepts to function within the parameters set by the constitution, the movement for democracy, for power to the parliament and judiciary and for rule of law should continue. There are certain sections in the media and research cells in the West which argue that any attempt to curtail the power of the military as the major decision-making authority would result in the capture of the country by the Talibans. This is a wrong assumption and it is based on wrong calculation of the motive, intent and power of the military in the war against terrorism. It is only a powerful, civilian, democratically elected government which can deal firmly with the terrorists and fundamentalists and which can promote peace within the country and with its neighbours.

About the role of Pakistan in peacebuilding :

Irenees :

Which are the most important factors of the conflict between India and Pakistan, and what are the main challenges of its resolution?

Syed Sikander Mehdi :

Regional level :

It is widely believed that Pakistan had a hand in sending the irregular and tribal forces into Kashmir soon after its independence. It is also widely a knowledge today that Pakistan started the war with India in 1965. Likewise, the 1971 bloodshed of the Bengalis and war with India was all because of the authoritarian approach to settle political disputes through military means. With the passage of time, conflict between India and Pakistan has become a strong vested interest for the armed forces of both the countries. The conflict would justify the stealing away of larger portion of national resources of the countries by the military. It also makes the military feel important. Conflict with India is all the more important for the Pakistan military, because it assures that the military would continue to enjoy uncontrolled power. As such, the whipping up of jingoism, militarism and nuclearism serves an important purpose in the overall context of the institutional aspiration of the military in Pakistan. Pakistan’s relations with Afghanistan and its involvement in the Afghan crisis since the change of regime in Kabul in 1978 is another manifestation of Islamabad’s preference for conflict resolution through military means and not through dialogue.

International level:

While the most important internal factor is the need of Pakistan military to have India as an enemy to justify its own armament and its hold on the resources and institutions of the state, the American policy of supporting military dictatorship in Pakistan and extending support to the powerful confrontationist lobbies and constituencies in India and Pakistan is a major hurdle to peace in South Asia. Again, the weapon-selling corporations and governments have a vested interest in the continuance of the conflict between the two countries. Thirdly, the regional states are more busy fighting among themselves and not collectively strengthening themselves against the exploitative and manipulative foreign interventionist forces.

Irenees :

Pakistan is accused of playing a double role in the building of an international peace : on the one hand, the government is claiming its involvement in antiterrorist fight, on the other hand, Pakistan would give refuge to talibans, or Al-Qaida leaders. According to you, what is the geopolitical Pakistan position in the context of the building an international peace?

Syed Sikander Mehdi :

Pakistan occupies an important geopolitical position. Historically, culturally and geopolitically, it is a part of Indo-Pakistan subcontinent and a part of South Asia, but it is equally connected with the region stretching from Afghanistan to the Central Asian republics and beyond and also with the region stretching from Iran to the Gulf region and the Arab world. It is clearly in a region mined with awakened and sleeping volcanoes. So far, Pakistan has played a power political game to gain some little gains out of the crises in the region.

It can clearly gain much more if it becomes a peace state, pursues a deliberate policy of peace with the neighbouring countries and beyond and promotes peace within and across the frontiers. If Pakistan builds bridges with India, Iran and Afghanistan and gets positively and actively involved in the process of regional co-operation and integration, the doors for international commerce, trade and tourism will be opened up in South and Central Asia in particular and terrorism in the region can be given a severe blow. But as long as the military remains the most powerful political force in the country and as long as feudalism and tribalism thrive here and authoritarian governance continues, Pakistan cannot emerge as a peace state, as a state with deep commitment for regional peace-building.

About you

Irenees :

Profesor and Director of Refugee and Migration Studies Programme, at the University of Karachi (Pakistan), what are the principal reasons of your peace involvement?

Syed Sikander Mehdi :

I was born in Gaya, Bihar, India. It used to be a small town. It is closer to one of the most important Buddhist shrines in the world: Buddh Gaya. My parents and other relatives used to talk about the Buddh Gaya shrine, Gautama Buddha and his teachings.

During my student days, the Vietnam war influenced my thinking and finally the Pakistan military action of 1971 in former East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and the massacre of common, poor people and the rape of a large number of Bangladeshi women tremendously impacted upon my thinking and upon my national, regional and worldview. My study in Australia and my experience as a visiting fellow at the International Peace Research Institute at Oslo sharpened my views and finally, the militarization and nuclearization of India and Pakistan, the powerlessness of Pakistani masses, the strong hold of the military and feudal lords in the country, the arrogance of American power and gross discrimination against the Muslims, my involvement in International Peace Research Association (IPRA) and my closer contact with peace scholars like Betty Reardon, Elise Boulding and Glenn D Paige contributed in developing my interest in peace studies.

Irenees :

As a specialist of this subject, can you identify the stakes of a « peace education » in Pakistan? How could you define this “peace education” concept? And the “Peace culture » concept, which you consider as closely linked with this first?

Syed Sikander Mehdi :

While every country needs peace, Pakistan needs peace most and most urgently. It is a country which cannot survive for long as a country without peace. A number of NGOs are doubtless involved in the struggle for peace, democracy, human rights and human dignity, but peace education as a vital area of concern is still neglected. Many university courses have merely titled the courses as peace studies and conflict resolution studies, but peace teaching is still very nationalistic. It is important that workshops on peace, nonviolence, human security and democratic governance are frequently organized in Pakistan and these should be organized in co-operation with the international teaching and research institutions.

However, it is not only through formal education of peace in educational institutions that peace can arrive and thrive in Pakistan. Pakistan’s glorious heritage of peace and nonviolence, the sufi culture and political struggles for the freedom of the press, democracy and people’s power need to be highlighted through art, plays, poetry, remembrance and celebrations. In other word, peace education needs to be promoted through the promotion of peace culture and vice versa.

Irenees :

According to you, how to promote a peace culture after an armed conflict or a war?

Syed Sikander Mehdi :

I will recommend the Japanese model. Information regarding the grave consequences of militarism, violence, conflict and war for the common people should be disseminated very widely and the sufferings of the people should be highlighted. Furthermore, the involved parties should have the courage to own their own criminal war activities and seek forgiveness. In this regard, education of peace through museums for peace can be very effective.

Irenees :

What does “peace” mean to you?

Syed Sikander Mehdi :

Professor Johan Galtung defines peace as a state or a stage of a society where maximum actualization of potentials of all is ensured. In other words, justice is at the centre the concept of peace. Without justice, the maximum actualisation of the potentials of all will not be possible. Hence, for all practical purposes, justice is peace and peace is justice.